Allowed

Zahid and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2018A482/43174/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Section 482 Cr.P.C. application quashing an order of cognizance under Section 26 Indian Forest Act and a revision order, finding FIR allegations insufficient for that offence, while preserving proceedings under the Arms Act.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2017 and the cognizance order dated 28.04.2017 in Criminal Case No. 258 of 2012 under Section 26

Zahid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43174 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Zahid And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Barnwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2017 (Zahid and others v. State of U.P.) as well as the cognizance order dated 28.04.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 258 of 2012 (State v. Zahid Beg and others) under Section 26 of Forest Act, Police Station - Sherkot, District - Bijnor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the allegations against the applicants are that they attempted to shoot wild animals in reserved forest. There is no allegation against the applicants to do any mischief to the reserved forest. Therefore, offence under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act is not made out against them.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that from the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., offence under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act is made out against the applicants. Apart from this, she further contended that against the applicants, first information reports for the offences under Sections 4/25 Arms Act, 4/25 Arms Act, 30A Arms Act and 4/25 Arms Act registered at Case Crime No. 93 of 2012, 94 of 2012, 95 of 2012 and 96 of 2012, respectively are also lodged. Therefore, orders dated 28.09.2017 and 28.04.2017 cannot be quashed.

¶9

As per version of the F.I.R., on 11.06.2012 at about 04.00 A.M. applicants - Zahid, Jamshed, Islam, Nizamuddin and Sajid attempted to shoot wild animals in the reserved forest. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that applicants have done any mischief to the reserved forest. From the perusal of the F.I.R., offence under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act is not made

¶10

out against the applicants.

¶11

Accordingly, the application is allowed. Order dated 28.09.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2017 (Zahid and others v. State of U.P.) as well as the cognizance order dated 28.04.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 258 of 2012 (State v. Zahid Beg and others) under Section 26 of Forest Act, Police Station - Sherkot, District - Bijnor are hereby set aside.

¶12

However, this order shall not affect the criminal proceedings against the applicants for offences under Sections 4/25 Arms Act, 4/25 Arms Act, 30A Arms Act and 4/25 Arms Act registered at Case Crime No. 93 of 2012, 94 of 2012, 95 of 2012 and 96 of 2012, respectively.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.1.2018 I. Batabyal

Zahid and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahid and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sugreev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh @ Bade Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Kumar Dhingra Vs State of U.P. and Another